Where do they stand?
For
now, however, the question of whether health care is a right is better
to ignore. Whether or not Americans have a right to health care,
we still want it of course, and of course every politician is trying to
come up with the most enticing plan to give it to us, wrapping the
package in whatever terminology will catch the voter’s eye and
interest. That’s what politicians are for after all, isn’t it?
Hillary Clinton, who leads the polls on the Democratic side, is a
proponent of universal health care. Her plan, which she defines
as a continuing crusade from her days as First Lady through her service
in the Senate, is a compilation of “baby steps,” as she calls them, and
is the most complicated of any of the candidates. Clinton has
worked hard to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program and
favors subsidization of teaching hospitals. She is also one of
those who links the term “universal health care” with a mindset of
preventative medicine, especially in cases of preexisting medical
conditions. Hillary Clinton claims that by the end of her second
term of office as President, the goal of universal health care, in
large part funded by the federal government, could be achieved.
On
this count, the man who currently runs second to Clinton trumps her
claim with his own: Barack Obama promises that under his health care
plan, America can achieve universal coverage by the end of his first
term. Obama frames this claim, however, with an interesting
distinction: his plan does not include making health insurance
mandatory, which means that people are free to choose whether or not to
purchase it. In the famous YouTube debate in July, Obama said, “I
think that the problem is not that people are trying to avoid getting
health care coverage. It is folks… who are desperately in desire of it,
but they can can't afford it.” According to Obama’s plan, the
realization of universal health care therefore depends on the insurance
being cheap enough and easy enough to obtain that everyone will want to
buy it. This seems a tenuous leap to some critics.
This
is in contrast to the plan of John Edwards, who is the truest advocate
of socialized medicine, although that term won’t often escape his
lips. His plan includes mandating that every American purchase
health insurance, and bolsters the finances with extensive federal
funding. Every one of the “universal coverage,” “socialized
medicine,” and “single payer” plans is estimated to cost in the
neighborhood of $100 billion to implement. On the Republican
side, the health plans tend to be more rudimentary. Rudy
Giuliani, the leader in most polls, cites the value of freedom of
choice for the insured and the power of “free-market principles” to
maintain viable price and availability. The former New York mayor
described the problem as follows: “The problem with our health
insurance is it's government- and employer-dominated. People don't make
individual choices. It's your health; you should own your health
insurance.” Giuliani’s plan also includes $15,000 tax deductions
for families in the form of a medical savings account to be used toward
the cost of health insurance.
Fred Thompson, who currently
runs second after recently joining the race, takes an even more
conservative approach to the health care issue, advocating the free
market, competition and personal responsibility. He is against
the medical savings accounts and vouchers that Giuliani favors,
trusting in unassisted economics to work out issues of who is covered
and who is not.
Is universal health care actually possible?http://www.insure.com/articles/disabilityinsurance/index.html
Well,
we know that universal health care is not a right. We know it
will cost a lot of money. But some Americans still believe it's
the best option. So we have to ask: is universal health care
really possible? Let’s go back to the beginning.
Michael
Moore gathered a lot of attention to the possibility of universal
health care. It turned out, however, that the standing ovation he
received at Cannes Film Festival didn’t include doctors from France,
the U.K. and Canada, who criticized Moore afterwards for grossly
mischaracterizing the nature of the public health systems in those
countries.
In point of fact, the health systems are riddled
with inefficiency and error, and the waiting lists for treatments and
services are exponentially longer abroad than here in the U.S..
And as for the story of receiving immediate and free medical treatment
in Cuba… suffice it to say that when Fidel Castro himself is worried
about his health, he brings in experts from other countries who have
expertise and resources that are simply unavailable in Cuba’s
socialized system. When Castro flew in surgeon Dr. Jose Luis
Garcia Sabrido, the episode was well catalogued, including a piece by
Fred Thompson himself in the National Review.
The real question
It
would seem evident that socialized medicine is ineffective, and that
perhaps despite our best efforts, sometimes people will die who might
have been saved. And the free market has similar problems.
There are people in this country who cannot afford health
insurance. That is a simple fact. If there is no universal
health care plan in place, those people will not have the immediate
financial support of the government. There are other sources of
health treatment, many operated by charities. In general, they
offer fewer resources than a fully equipped hospital. But then
again, a fully equipped hospital is still no Mayo Clinic.
No
system is perfect. We know free-market health care is flawed, and
we have seen the gross flaws of socialized medicine, and the errors in
the plan of universal health care. The question is then whether
you would trust your fellow citizens with much less resources or the
federal government with much more, to treat those who are without
insurance. The question is less government intervention or more
government intervention—less government help or more government
help—less government or more government. But that’s politics. Back to Page 1
|
